Dr. Portner is an OB/GYN, Chief of Medical Staff, and Chief of Surgery at PMC.The majority of the board was present with recent appointee Dr. Kevin McGrath absent. PMC Chief Operations Officer (CEO) Craig Loveless was also absent. The board informed the audience Mr. Loveless was sick. Dr. Portner was present with his legal counsel, attorney Mark Davis.

Board Chairwoman Candy Ruedeman opened by saying, "We have one item on the agenda. It is to consider whether the board will act further to negotiate a renewal of Dr. Portner's employment contract. We feel like we have done our duty in considering this matter and it is time to address it formally in the board. If there is any discussion from the audience we will be glad to hear what anyone has to say."

An audience member asked, "What exactly is the problem with Dr. Portner? I guess I've been out of the loop a while but I don't understand what is happening at this point."

Reudeman responded, "It is not something we can discuss in an open meeting."

Josh Cotter, in-house legal counsel for Prowers Medical Center, followed her saying, "Today is just about considering renewal or non-renewal.

Advertisement

"

An audience member got up and spoke in favor of Dr. Portner.

Dr. Portner's attorney Mark Davis spoke next. "I'd like to have a few words because I'm not sure if the community knows the timeline of what has happened here. But in the first week of November there was a meeting..."

Counselor Cotter interrupted him saying, "Mr. Davis if I could interrupt. We're not treating this as a courtroom today."

Davis responded, "I understand, I'm not advocating a position here. I think that the public has a right to know what has happened in this case."

Cotter replied, "And they do through meeting minutes. But this isn't the forum or the time or the place."

Davis said, "Well I am asking to have the floor. You asked if I have comments, I have comments."

Cotter asked, "Is it going to be in the way of trying to put a legal case in front of the board?"

Davis answered, "No it is going to be in the way of whether or not there were good faith negotiations in this case. That's what this is about."

Chairwoman Ruedeman weighed in saying, "And what we are here to vote on is whether we will negotiate further in that process of renewing the contract."

Davis explained at length, "Approximately November 2nd or the first week of November this board had a meeting and they tabled the meeting saying 'we would like to go into further negotiations with Dr. Portner. We would like to do that.' Not even 12 hours later Dr. Portner comes into the hospital and he is escorted out of the hospital with some amorphous accusation of misconduct on his part, which has never been told to my office to this day.

"Less than 12 hours after he is told they are going to negotiate in good faith he is being led out of the hospital. And I have a pretty good idea what that is about and I'm not here to argue a case but I think the public needs to know the way this hospital treated this man and the way the hospital continues to treat this man. They make false allegations about him, they say things about him that get out into the public. You apparently haven't had the ability to just let it go and let his contract expire. You have to defame his name, his conduct, his character and his profession on the way out the door and there are going to be legal consequences for that.

But I don't believe this board has done anything to enter into good faith negotiations. You have not contacted my office. Dr. Portner has not been contacted. We are going to have a meeting right now and we are going to decide whether we're going to have negotiations on the contract. I've never even been contacted about the matter. I think Dr. Portner has been treated shabbily and I hope that this board understands that the kind of conduct that has come from the CEO of the hospital should not be tolerated under any circumstance."

Dr. Portner then spoke, "I have offered to negotiate this as you know. And we have been blocked out of this completely by your other legal counsel from Denver. So what kind of negotiations have we had or what can we do? The hospital, afraid of a lawsuit, has stopped negotiations. I didn't start this. When I left here at that meeting it was said we were going to re-negotiate my contract because I said I'd like to work for a couple more years. I'd work at a less salary since you thought I was too expensive.

"That's how I left here. Twelve hours later I was suspended. Obviously to stop that negotiation and the board, instead of overriding that and saying, 'let's be serious about this,' has just continued it. And there have been no negotiations about me, what so ever.

"I've worked here for 10 years and as you know I could fill the room with people supporting me as far as my talents and what I've done here. I've worked uber-time here for this hospital for the last five years working twenty-four/seven to save this hospital money, and to be told now you can't afford me. And now I say, 'well okay I'll work for a little less, I'm gonna retire in a couple years.' And that doesn't work either. All of a sudden I'm suspended and all these other things are happening that we're not gonna talk about now I know.

"But I think there's some unfairness here. You've listened to a CEO who's made decisions here that are far from normal and I can't believe the board would support this. I think it's embarrassing for the board to support this. That's all I have to say."

Board member Ronni Farmer explained the board's position somewhat, "Most of our discussions have been in executive meetings, as you are well aware; with legal counsel. So the information that we received hasn't been made known to the public, nor will it be; unless there is a court order authorizing that.

"So there are a lot of things that have been taken into consideration, there has been a lot of soul searching by everybody on the board to try to come to a conclusion or a decision that is beneficial to everybody. But again I think the board has made a very conscious effort; taken into account everybody's feelings, tried to look at what the community wanted and what they need. Also take a look at what the hospital needs and what they want."

Dr. Portner asked, "Have you talked to the community?"

Farmer replied, "I have not talked to the community."

Portner continued, "Well who has?"

Farmer followed up saying, "I think we have made available to the community what we could make available to them. How they interpret that is not my problem."

Counselor Davis interjected, "I understand that you need to make a decision. Dr. Portner understands that the board has every right, if they don't want to renew that contract they don't renew it, we understand that. Where we have a problem is, right now the hospital is attempting to keep Dr. Portner from practicing in southeast Colorado. They are trying to get in the way of his re-applying for privileges after his contract expires, contrary to state law by the way."

Counselor Cotter spoke up, "That's actually not true."

Davis retorted, "It is true, you can have that opinion if you want counselor."

Cotter responded, "That's absolutely false. We have not touched his privileges."

Davis countered, "They're attempting to. There's been an MEC meeting called, that's the medical executive committee. It's been communicated to me by Denver counsel that the hospital does not want him to have his hospital privileges when his contract expires. That's where we're stuck is that they won't let him practice in southeast Colorado. Is that fair? Does this board know that? I suspect this board doesn't even know what the negotiations have been with counsel."

Board member Marge Campbell spoke out, "Mr. Davis I will take exception to that. This board knows very well what has been going on, very well. My oath was to do what was best for the community and for this hospital. Based on the information I have, which I am not allowed to share with you, that is what I am doing, that is what every member of this board has been doing. And we are well aware of anything that you have to tell us."

Davis responded, "And the amazing part of that is you've apparently been in all sorts of executive committees, you haven't asked me to be there, you haven't asked Dr. Portner to be there to get our version of any of this. The hospital has just been running rogue in this entire process. This is all we get, we get all this innuendo that 'oh Dr. Portner we have things, we know things.' Well I've been working on this case for six weeks now and nobody has ever told me what Dr. Portner has supposedly done or not done. You would think that would bring things to a head if somebody would tell me what it is he is being accused of. This board has done nothing but spread innuendo without our being able to give any kind of a response."

Cotter spoke up, "That's actually not true."

Davis said, "The court has found against the hospital."

Cotter replied, "We've been in court and stuff has been presented in court so you are aware of things."

Davis answered, "And the court found against the hospital."

Cotter then shifted his attention to the hospital board saying, "Chairwoman, unless there is something new to present, I think we know the thoughts, I think we know the feelings, unless there is something new to present..."

Portner then asked, "Well are there any new accusations?"

Cotter responded, "At this point, there is one agenda item for this meeting, this meeting is not for that kind..."

Davis interrupted Cotter saying, "You said that you have been investigating this matter coming to a conclusion in whether to re-negotiate. I think you are doing it in bad faith, you aren't telling us what you know."

Davis retorted, "As is the public, and I hope the press is getting this. This is a shabby deal."

Cotter spoke, "Okay you have expressed yourself. You've been disrespectful we ask that that not be the case."

Davis answered, "You are saying I'm disrespectful when you don't even give my client due process in any of this at any time."

Ruedeman spoke up, "Excuse me, there is one item on the agenda. The board has met in executive session with our legal counsel. You are right- what is discussed in executive session by statute stays in executive session."

Davis responded, "I understand that. But you understand you have not called my client or me into that."

Cotter interjected, "There is no obligation to do so. The contract clearly states when and if this board, the corporation, wants to enter into further negotiations then they can."

Davis then retorted, "So you don't have any obligation, but apparently you don't have any decency either."

Board member Julie Branes spoke next, "I would like to clarify what you said about Dr. Portner not being present. He actually was present at the executive meeting on November 1. Along with several other people he brought at his invitation."

Davis responded, "But you've had meetings since then."

Cotter said, "As the board is capable and is able to do so legally."

Portner responded to Branes saying, "Julie at that meeting, you'd not brought any charges against me or told me anything."

Cotter spoke out, "This is outside the scope of this meeting."

Ruedeman followed him saying, "The meeting is for what I stated."

Portner said, "You've made a decision, probably, as far as my contract. The point is I would think whatever you discuss I should have a chance to defend myself cause I don't know what you've been told or what you're looking at."

Cotter responded, "There is one agenda item."

Ruedeman followed him saying, "There is one agenda item. That discussion, that part of it, would be outside the scope of this board meeting."

Portner replied, "But you've made a decision on it based on..."

Cotter interrupted him saying, "No there has not been a decision."

Cotter went on to say shortly thereafter, "No decision's been made. There's one agenda item. You are making assumptions and presumptions about a decision that hasn't even been made yet. There's been no motion, there's been no vote. There's only one agenda item and the case you're trying to make isn't at all an issue for consideration in this meeting."

Portner asked, "Well what is the issue?"

Cotter answered him, "The issue solely is, your contract. Dr. Portner's contract under section six of the contract states that this agreement will commence on the date that it is signed and will expire on March 21, 2013. That same section states that if a mutual understanding cannot for whatever reason be reached regarding an extension of the contract this agreement will expire on its terms. The only issue to be considered today is not the case that you are trying to make out. It is whether or not to enter into future negotiations and to consider further extension of your contract, that said, nothing else. You want to make this big hoo-ha, and this big case. You've come here obviously..."

Davis interrupted Cotter speaking loudly, "Wait a second counsel. You started the hoo-ha by escorting my client out of the hospital. And the hospital or administrator has never told us what happened. Don't tell us we're making a hoo-ha. Your CEO did this, your CEO caused this."

Cotter replied, "Out of the scope of this meeting."

Ruedeman spoke up, "Please, I was here. There were issues that will not be addressed in public."

Davis responded, "You haven't even addressed it with me."

Ruedeman retorted, "I have not been asked to address it with you."

Davis said, "Your counsel has not addressed it with me. You've lost in court twice now."

Cotter interjected, "There are different perspectives on that."

Ruedeman said, "Well we're not going to go to those decisions, the court record is public."

Davis said, "The public needs to know what's been happening."

Ruedeman again said, "The court record is public."

Board chairwoman Ruedeman then asked for any motions to consider further negotiations and renewal of Dr. Portner's contract.

Board member Ronni Farmer moved for the board to not renegotiate Dr. Portner's contract and let it expire on terms. He moved that an amendment be added; that all of Dr. Portner's medical privileges remain intact for two years. Farmer explained, "so he does not have a right to work issue because the only thing we are doing is letting the contract expire on it's terms." The standard renewal time for medical privileges is a two-year period.The board approved the motion unanimously. Dr. Portner's contract with PMC will expire in March 2013.

As soon as the vote was taken board member Marge Campbell moved to adjourn the meeting.

When asked to provide the public with an explanation as to why the board chose not to renew Dr. Portner's contract Chairwoman Ruedeman responded, "Right now, because there has been prior litigation, there has been the announcement there will be more, I cannot respond."

Dr. Portner responded to the question saying, "I can tell you I have been at all these meetings and no one has told me yet why and I am telling the press that, I don't know why."

Those interested in the court proceedings referred to in this article can find transcripts of the case at the Prowers County District Court.

Article Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates our ground rules, is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, reckless to the community, etc.

We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.

Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

Our commenting section is self-policing, so if you see a comment that violates our ground rules, flag it (mouse over to the far right of the commenter's name until you see the flag symbol and click that), then we'll review it.